UPDATE to our earlier story
by Mondoreb & Little Baby Ginn
The story of the Houston Chronicle story "Whom the Troops Support" is how this story became a "story". Take one newspaper, add some secret "analysis" that runs contrary to what is known and voila!--one "story" coming right up.
From our earlier story:
The story is dressed up to show that anti-war critcs/candidates Ron Paul and Barack Obama lead in campaign contributions from military givers. But is that the story? or is this story from the Houston Chronicle the story?
From the Houston Chronicle:
According to a Houston Chronicle analysis of campaign records from January through September, Paul received $63,440 in donations from current military employees and several retired military personnel.The story might just be the Chronicle's methodology in determining it's results. Which is sad, because it throws cold water on what might have been an interesting look at the rates of giving among the military instead of an analysis of Houston Chronicle story contruction. Paul, Obama and McCain supporters have a right to be disappointed when doubts are raised about this story's validity.
Democrat Barack Obama, another war critic, was second in military giving. The Illinois senator got $53,968 during the nine months.
He was followed by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz, a decorated Navy pilot and former Vietnam prisoner of war, who received $48,208 in military-related giving. McCain has been one of the most vigorous defenders of President Bush's decision this year to increase U.S. troops in Iraq.
No information about the rates of military campaign contributions. No look back at how the military actually votes in presidential election. Not a word of the "Chronicle's analysis" and its methodology. No information on the analytical tools used by the Chronicle.
But the "analysis" was able to determine the dollar amounts of the various candidates was calculated down to the very dollar. Impressive.
No info, just breathless headlines. Must be the Houston Chronicle way.